REINSTATEMENT

On Feb. 15, 2022, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension with Conditions (By Consent) suspending respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 120 days effective Nov. 17, 2021. On April 13, 2022, the respondent, Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, submitted an affidavit pursuant to MCR 9.123(A) showing that she has fully complied with all requirements of the Order of Suspension with Conditions. No objection was filed by the grievance administrator within the time prescribed in MCR 9.123(A) and the board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Amanda Ann-Carmen Andrews, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective May 2, 2022.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Alexander H. Benson, P43210, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #53. Reprimand effective April 28, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct while representing a client in an arbitration proceeding by engaging in ex parte communications with the selected sole arbitrator in violation of MRPC 3.5(b).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,347.84.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

David A. Chasnick, P57097, Novi, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #68. Reprimand effective April 28, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed an Amended Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client for whom he was retained to domesticate a 2012 Nevada parenting agreement in Michigan and to file a motion to enforce custody.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); and failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $757.96.

REPRIMAND WITH CONDITION (BY CONSENT)

Mark D. Cobb, P74787, Southfield, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #56. Reprimand effective April 28, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions and plea of no contest as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct through his improper use of his two IOLTA accounts held at Chase Bank.

Specifically, and in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent held funds other than client or third-person funds in an IOLTA in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of his clients or third persons separate from his own in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds into an IOLTA in an amount more than reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and subject to a condition relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $758.36.

REINSTATEMENT

On Feb. 8, 2022, the hearing panel issued an Order of Suspension (By Consent), suspending the respondent from the practice of law in Michigan for 30 days effective March 2, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the respondent, Casper P. Connolly, filed an affidavit purporting to show compliance with the order of discipline and the court rules. The board notified the respondent that his affidavit was not in compliance with MCR 9.123(A) as amended in 2020 and requested that he file a conforming affidavit at his earliest convenience. On April 12, 2022, the respondent submitted another affidavit. The grievance administrator’s counsel objected to the respondent’s second affidavit. The respondent on April 14, 2022, filed a third affidavit in compliance with MCR 9.123(A) showing that he has fully complied with all requirements of the Order of Suspension (By Consent) and the grievance administrator’s counsel withdrew his objection. The board being otherwise advised;

NOW THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that the respondent, Casper P. Connolly, is REINSTATED to the practice of law in Michigan effective April 15, 2022

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

Todd A. Courser, P69829, Lapeer, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #2. Reprimand effective May 4, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained the respondent’s admission that he was convicted by no contest plea on Aug. 28, 2019, of willful neglect of duty public office, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.478, in People of the State of Michigan v Todd Anthony Courser, 40th Circuit Court Case No. 19-013022-FH.

Based on the respondent’s plea, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615 in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $758.36.

REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)

David R. Heyboer, P27975, Fort Gratiot, by the Attorney Discipline Board Genesee County Hearing Panel #4. Reprimand effective April 14, 2022.

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5) that was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the stipulation and the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his handling of a client’s post-divorce judgment matter. After his client’s divorce was finalized in July 2016, the respondent agreed to prepare two qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO), as required by the judgment of divorce, to ensure his client received her share of her ex-husband’s pension and annuity funds. Thereafter, the respondent issued subpoenas to obtain the values of the pension and annuity funds to the wrong entity and failed to respond to several inquiries his client made in 2017 as to the status of her matter. In July 2018, in response to a request for investigation filed by his client, the respondent stated that he still intended to prepare the QDROs. Beginning in October 2018 and continuing to May 2021, the respondent made several promises to the grievance administrator that he planned to complete and file the QDROs, but as of the filing of the formal complaint he still had not done so.

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation and the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation in MRPC 8.4(a); engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c); and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2).

The panel ordered that the respondent be reprimanded, as set forth in the parties’ stipulation. Costs were assessed in the amount of $765.03.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION

Seymour Hundley Jr., P39081, Troy, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #52. Suspension, 90 days effective May 4, 2022.

Based upon the respondent’s default and evidence presented to the hearing panel at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct during his representation of a client in a probate matter to open an estate for her deceased father and when he failed to answer a request for investigation.

Specifically, the panel found that the respondent neglected a legal matter in violation of MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of the client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to comply with reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); failed to refund an unearned fee in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2); engaged in conduct that violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4); engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law in violation of MRPC 8.4(b); engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2); engaged in conduct that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and failed to answer a Request for Investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7) and MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 90 days and that the respondent pay restitution totaling $1,000. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,852.41.

REPRIMAND

Gil Whitney McRipley, P41150, Oak Park, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #71. Reprimand effective April 19, 2022.

After proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that the respondent committed professional misconduct while operating K-Law, Inc. and d/b/a “Bookies Ham and Soul” (Bookies). Specifically, the panel found that while president of K-Law, Inc. and a manager and operator of Bookies, the respondent issued paychecks to an employee when he knew there were insufficient funds to cover the checks written and failed to pay employment taxes despite issuing a W-2 representing taxes had been withheld from wages. The respondent was found to have engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) and that was contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3).

The panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of 30 days. The respondent filed a timely petition for review and a petition for a stay, which resulted in an automatic stay of the hearing panel’s order of suspension pursuant to MCR 9.115(K).

After review proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Attorney Discipline Board affirmed the hearing panel’s findings of misconduct but reduced the discipline imposed from a 30-day suspension to a reprimand. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,103.55.

SUSPENSION (WITH CONDITION)

Sten T. Sliger, P63200, Quincy, Florida, by the Attorney Discipline Board. Suspension, three years effective April 28, 2022.

The grievance administrator filed a notice of filing of reciprocal discipline pursuant to MCR 9.120(C) that attached a certified copy of an order suspending the respondent’s license to practice law in Florida for three years and ordering restitution effective on Nov. 18, 2021, in a matter titled The Florida Bar v Sten Thield Sliger, SC20-553.

An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was issued by the board on Feb. 16, 2022, ordering the parties to, within 21 days from service of the order, inform the board in writing (i) of any objection to the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan based on the grounds set forth in MCR 9.120(C)(1) and (ii) whether a hearing was requested. The 21-day period set forth in the board’s Feb. 16, 2022, order expired without objection or request for hearing by either party.

On March 30, 2022, the Attorney Discipline Board ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Michigan for three years effective April 28, 2022, with the added condition that the respondent is not eligible for reinstatement pursuant to MCR 9.123(B) and (C) and MCR 9.124 until he has filed satisfactory written proof with the grievance administrator and the Attorney Discipline Board that he has paid restitution as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,509.56.

SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)

Carl M. Woodard, P37502, Dansville, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #2. Suspension, one year effective Nov. 1, 2021.¹

The respondent and the grievance administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline and Waiver in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5) which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based upon the respondent’s admissions, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct as alleged in the 12-count formal complaint. Specifically, during his representation of seven separate, unrelated clients; by failing to answer requests for investigation filed by five of the clients; by making a false statement in his answer to a request for investigation filed by one of the clients; by soliciting representation from a person with whom he had no prior professional relationship; by failing to notify his current clients that his license to practice law was suspended on May 4, 2021, in a separate, unrelated matter, Grievance Administrator v Carl M. Woodard, 20-74-GA; and by failing to file the required affidavit showing he notified his clients within 14 days of the effective date of his order of suspension in Grievance Administrator v Carl M. Woodard, 20-74-GA.

Based upon the respondent’s admissions as set forth in the parties’ stipulation, the panel finds that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) (counts 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client in violation of MRPC 1.2(a) (counts 1-3, 5, 8, and 10); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in violation of MRPC 1.3 (counts 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10); failed to promptly comply with a client’s reasonable requests for information in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) (counts 1-3, 6, 8, and 10); failed to explain a matter to a client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation in violation of MRPC 1.4(b) (counts 1-2); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as failing to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled and/or failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d) (counts 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10); failed to respond to a lawful demand for information in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) (counts 4, 7, 9, and 11); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) (counts 3, 5, 8, and 10); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c) (counts 5, 6, 8, and 10); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach in violation of MCR 9.104(2) (counts 1-12); engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals in violation of MCR 9.104(3) (counts 1-12); engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) (counts 1-12); failed to answer a request for investigation in violation of MCR 9.104(7), MCR 9.112(A), and MCR 9.113(B)(2) (counts 4, 7, 9, and 11); and failed to notify his client pursuant to the provisions of MCR 9.119(A)(1) through (6) within seven days of the effective date of his order of suspension in violation of MCR 9.104(9) and MCR 9.119(A) (counts 8 and 10).

In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the panel ordered that the respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for a period of one year to run consecutively to the 180-day suspension ordered by the hearing panel in Grievance Administrator v Carl M. Woodard, 20-74-GA, that he pay restitution totaling $14,995, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,131.13.